The next encounter
between Hinduism and Christianity took place in the Constituent Assembly
which started framing independent India’s Constitution in 1947 and completed
the work by the end of 1949. The dialogue centred round what the Christian
participants proclaimed as the their fundamental human right, namely, to
propagate their religion.

The Christians
were quite clear in their mind as well as pronouncements that the “right
to propagate” religion entitled them to 1) receive massive financial help
from foreign sources; 2) maintain and multiply churches and missions; 3)
train and mobilize an ever expanding army of missionaries, native and foreign;
4) enlarge the mission infrastructure of seminaries, social service institutions
and mass media; and 5) convert an increasing number of Hindus to Christianity
by every means including fraud and material inducements. They had been
holding meetings and passing resolutions on all these points even before
the Constituent Assembly was mentioned in the negotiations between the
Congress leaders and the British Cabinet Mission.

The Hindu participants,
on the other hand, did not grasp the full meaning of the “right to propagate
religion”. They did understand that the word “propagate” was only a substitute
for the word “convert”, and tried to hedge in the provision with various
restrictions. But they did not realize or think it important that “propagation
of religion” had employed and would employ a formidable organisational
weapon forged almost entirely with the help of foreign money and controlled
completely by foreign establishments including intelligence networks. Therefore,
the points they raised in the course of the dialogue did not go to the
heart of the matter.

Mahatma Gandhi
had tried to put the Christian missions in a tight spot by proclaiming
that proselytisation was morally wrong and spiritually sterile if not counter-productive.
He had also appealed to the missions to employ their enormous resources
for rendering humanitarian service to the poor without any motive for proselytisation.
But that was tantamount to asking and expecting a man-eater to start living
on vegetarian diet. The only point which had registered with the missions
was his ruling out any legislation against proselytisation and his affirmation
that they would be free to operate in independent India. The missionaries
had continued to maintain that they could not withhold “sharing their spiritual
riches” with the heathens. The Mahatma’s infatuation with Jesus as a “great
teacher” and his identification of Christianity with the Sermon on the
Mount had only whetted their appetite for converts. It was not long before
they leapt into renewed endeavour.

On the other hand,
the leaders of the nation who were in charge of framing the Constitution
behaved as if they had never heard what Gandhiji had said vis-a-vis proselytisation.
His views on the subject were not even mentioned in the deliberations of
the sub-committee entrusted with finalising the clauses on fundamental
rights relating to religion. Nor did his views figure in the relevant debates
in the Constituent Assembly. One wonders whether this silence was maintained
on his own behest or whether he had been side-lined. He was alive and active
when the first debate on the subject came up in the Constituent Assembly
in May 1947.

It is also significant
that the Christian leaders who had made it a point to pester Gandhiji in
earlier years ignored him completely after India become independent. Either
they had given him up as a hopeless job or were apprehensive that he might
say something which could create difficulties for Christian missions. Instead,
they concentrated on the leaders of the Congress Party for seeking assurances
that Christian rights and interests would be safeguarded in the future
set-up.

What helped the
Christian lobbyists a good deal was the talk about fundamental human rights
which filled the atmosphere at the time the Constitution was being framed.
The San Francisco Conference, had completed the framework of a United Nations
Charter. A declaration of fundamental human rights was being proposed and
discussed. The Christian missions were backed by powerful, people and establishments
in the West. They, therefore, exercised considerable influence in the United
Nations and were able to ensure that this declaration included their right
to wield organisational weapons in the countries of Asia and Africa for
the conversion of non-Christians. The politicians who mattered in India
were either unaware of the Christian game or did not understand the implications
of the “fundamental right to propagate religion”. They yielded easily when
the Christian lobby pressed for inclusion of the word “propagate” in the
clause which in its earlier version had allowed only freedom to profess
and practise religion.

The controllers
of Christian missions in Europe and America had foreseen quite early in
course of the Second World War that the enslaved countries of Asia and
Africa were heading towards freedom. The future of Christian missions in
these countries was fraught with danger. The missions were an integral
part of Western imperialism. Leading native freedom fighters did not look
at them with favour. It was, therefore, felt that the future of these missions
had to be rethought and replanned. They had to be presented in a new perspective
in the post-war world.

In the past, propagation
of Christianity and conversion of heathens with the help of organisational
weapons, forged and financed by the West, had been propped up as a “divinely
ordained” privilege. That was not going to work in the new world order
which was emerging fast. Propagation of Christianity was, therefore, to
be presented as a fundamental human right. Christian missions were to become
champions of religious liberty and minority rights.

A
early as 1941 church organisations in Britain and the USA had set up Commissions1
for projecting a post-war world order from the Christian point of view.
The Commissions “foresaw” great opportunities for “world evangelization”
in the “just and durable peace” that was to be ensured in the wake of victory
over the Axis Powers. More important, the Federal Council of the Churches
of Christ in America and Foreign Missions Conference of North America had
set up a joint Committee on Religious Liberty with which the International
Missionary Council was cooperating unofficially. The
Committee completed its work at the end of 1944 and its findings were presented
to the world at large in a 604-page book published by the International
Missionary Council from New York in January 1945.2

Part I of book
surveyed the whole world, country by country, in order to pin-point “the
problems of religious liberty today.” Coming to India under British rule,
the book said, “The major difficulty is in lack of social liberty, rather
than in deficiency of civil liberty legally formulated. It is extremely
hard for members of most Indian groups to transfer their allegiance to
Christianity or to any religion unless it be to the majority group of Hindus
- or in some areas, of Moslems among whom they dwell. Persecutions and
disabilities are severe, especially in regard to employment and the use
of land. They rest upon the fact that transfer of religious allegiance
brings a loss of entire status in society, including family position, economic
relationship in village or caste guild and opportunities of marriage in
the natural grouping. Not only do these hindrances
tend seriously to limit accession to Christianity, even from the ‘depressed
classes’ who have little to lose and everything to gain, but they also
serve to cut off Christians as a distinct body of persons largely dependent
upon their own meager group for economic and social opportunity.”3

The problem faced
by Christian missions in some princely states of India was also noted.
“Restrictions in certain Native States,” it was pointed out, “are ominous,
since they suggest what the full combination of political rule with religious
community interest may hold for wide portions of India in the future. Despite
considerable British persuasion and influence to the contrary, certain
Indian states prohibit the preaching of Christianity and the entry of missionaries
within their borders. Some states forbid the erection
of church buildings, some prohibit schools, one is tolerant of a single
denomination. Patna recently put severe difficulties in the way of change
from Hinduism to any other faith, using the piquant title ‘Freedom of Religion
Act’.”4

Looking to the
future the book stated, “Rule by Indians is already well along in transition
and is certain to be consummated, whether by gradual or by revolutionary
change from the present mixed system in which British authority has long
fostered the concept and the practice of self-government… The Congress
Party has committed itself to religious freedom and the protection of minorities. But
the restraints of British neutrality and British protection of minorities
are irksome to the strenuous elements, and they may be swept away in the
name of ‘Indian unity’ or even of ‘Hindu ism restored’. All that has been
associated in fact or in the emotions of Indians, with foreign rule and
its cultural connotations will be a target for attack.”5

Finally, it came
to the main culprit - Hinduism. “It is necessary,” it said, “to consider
further the basic nature of Hinduism, the system which controls the lives
of a multitude half as numerous as all the peoples of Europe. It is
a totalitarian social and economic and cultural complex knit together with
powerful religious sanctions. Every act of life, from birth till death,
is directed by it. Race, caste, guild or occupational grouping, tribe or
clan, family, gods, temple and pilgrimage, literature and legend, folklore
and local superstitions, ethical and social prescriptions, community in
all senses of the term: they are one pervasive, controlling force - Hinduism. How
can one renounce it? If not impossible the thought is unnatural, impious.
Withdrawal is an outlawing of self from all established institutions and
from normal human fellowship. Such is the background for the Hindu view
of conversion.”6

Mahatma Gandhi
invited pointed attention. “Gandhi,” said the book, “less conservative
and less vehement than many Hindu leaders, has nevertheless on many occasions
spoken his hostility to any enterprise, good though it is in much of its
spirit and service, which has as its purpose or result the change of an
Indian’s faith from Hinduism to another.” He was pinned down as inconsistent
because he was a party to the resolutions of the Delhi Unity Conference
in 1924. One of the resolutions was quoted as having said that “every individual
is at liberty to follow any faith and to change it whenever he wills, and
shall not by reason of such change of faith render himself liable to any
punishment or persecution at the hands of the followers of the faith renounced
by him.” Moreover, “Gandhi has been reminded in a
friendly way that much of his own life has been an effort to influence
the spiritual and moral outlook of all sorts of people ‘by speech or writing,
by appeal to reason and emotion’.”7

The
book laid down 15 “important issues on religious liberty recurrent in the
contemporary scene.”8 Three of them were as
follows:

12. Does
the individual have liberty to learn of other forms of religion than that
in which he is born and trained and the liberty to give his allegiance
to one of them?

13. Then there
is the issue of the freedom of the religious believer, singly or in association,
to express his faith in such manner as to seek the adherence of others
to it. Such freedom is the converse of the foregoing liberty.

14.
Are religious allegiance and the presentation of religion to be confined
by state frontiers? May the believer seek religious truth and fellowship,
or express his faith, or devote himself to religious service beyond the
boundaries of his own state?9

In its part II -
The Problem of Religious Liberty -, the book conceded that throughout its
history Hindu society had solved its religious differences peacefully.
At the same time, however, it pointed out that the problem of religious
liberty had never been raised by Hindus and no guidance in this respect
was available from Hindu history. “There is small evidence,” it said, “in
Hindu literature of persecution within Hindu society proper. There was
much controversy, religious and philosophical, and a good deal of variety
in organization. But vague and absorptive polytheism, whether ethnic and
static or advancing by addition and syncretism, did not raise clear issues
of compulsion or liberty. Jainism and Buddhism were deviations and reforms
from some aspects of the early Aryan faith-tradition. Their rise and progress;
the standardization of Jainism as a minor sect of ascetic tendencies; the
extension, export, the decline of Buddhism within a society of Hinduism
- all were essentially peaceful. The changes came
by persuasion and by slow social. pressures or movements, without clear
conflict of group wills against other groups or against individuals.”10

Religious intolerance
and persecution, it was noted, came to India in the wake of Islamic invasion.
The Portuguese also practised religious persecution. But “it is only in
the political developments of recent years, in the missionary introduction
of fresh Christian undertakings, and in the social and intellectual change
of the contemporary scene that the issue of religious liberty has become
apparent.” Hinduism was again held up as the main
culprit because “The chief social persecution of Christians has come from
Hindus” while “Christianity has had little significant contact with Islam
in India.”11 The reasons for this lack of
Christian contact with Islam were not given. The book withheld the stark
truth that Islam was in the same sordid business as Christianity, and that
Christian missionaries were murdered and mission stations burnt down whenever
and wherever they came in “significant contact with Islam”. The bandits
were devising a strategy for attacking a soft target which Hindu society
has been for quite some time.

Part III of the
book posed the question: What is religious liberty? Definitions of religious
liberty given by various individuals and organisations were surveyed. Finally,
the “statement on religious liberty” given by the sponsors of the joint
Committee in 1944 was chosen “as a brief and working formulation of recent
attitudes.” The statement was as follows:

The right
of individuals everywhere to religious liberty shall be recognized and
subject only to the maintenance of public order and security, shall be
guaranteed against legal provisions and administrative acts which would
impose political, economic, or social disabilities on grounds of religion.

Religious
liberty shall be interpreted to include freedom to worship according to
conscience and to bring up children in the faith of their parents; freedom
to preach, educate, publish, and carry on missionary activities; and freedom
to organize with others, and to acquire and hold property, for these purposes.12

Part IV of the book
– The Grounds of Religious Liberty – provided a scholarly discourse on
Natural Law and Natural Rights, Religious Liberty and the Interests of
Organised Community, Religious Liberty in Terms of Ethics and Philosophy,
Religious Liberty in Terms of Christian Theology and Tradition, and the
Position of the Roman Catholic Church. “The main historical record,” it
was admitted, “and the present map of intolerance suggest that Christianity
does not carry within itself principles, teachings, and practices which
automatically and generally secure religious liberty for all men under
its influence. An ethic is there, some teachings and practices are there,
which are potentially favourable to religious liberty. But religious and
social tendencies toward intolerance prevail over the elements working
toward liberty... Beyond question Christians need
in far greater measure to recognize the wrong of their intolerances, to
realize the liberty of the spirit necessary to the Christian life and inherent
- but too often latent - in Christian history, and to make their needed
contribution to liberty in a world essentially non-Christian.”13

Part
V of the book discussed Religious Liberty in Law. It was noted that “the
Modern State, of whatever type, tends to assume jurisdiction over all persons
in its territory” and that “The individual thus possesses legal rights
only in so far as allowed by the state.”14Nor
could religious liberty be safeguarded by “international action” because
“international relations are controlled by sovereign states.”15The
only way out, therefore, was to find out “whether religious liberty
is an inviolable right.”16The
search spread to the arena of international law. “The development of international
law,” it was discovered, “has been associated in history and in concept
with the growth of religious liberty. But there is no principle or consensus
in international law asserting an obligation of each state to accord religious
liberty to its inhabitants.”17

The
search for “consensus in international law” formed Part VI of the book.
It contained the joint Committee’s “conclusions and proposals.” To start
with the existing states were placed (or evaluated) in five main and three
subsidiary categories “according to conditions of religious liberty.”18India
found its place in Category III(a) along with Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, Burma,
Ethiopia and Nigeria. These states were found to have “freedom of religion
limited in certain regions, with important social pressures.”19

Next,
the book provided fifteen “brief observations on important issues for religious
liberty recurrent in the contemporary scene.”20
The core observations were as follows:

(12)
and (13): In order that development in religion may be possible in any
society and that individuals or groups may follow the expressions of religious
truth which seem likely to bring them to their highest spiritual development,
without the risks of hypocrisy and cramping confinement, individuals should
have liberty at least from adolescence to learn of other forms of religion
than that in which they are born and trained - with liberty to give allegiance
thereto. Conversely, religious believers should naturally have liberty
to declare and to recommend their faith to others and to invite fully voluntary
adherence to it. Where these opportunities do not freely exist, religious
liberty is denied or limited, and monopoly or fixity is sought by means
of enforced ignorance and group compulsion.

(14): Religion
confined by national frontiers is politically bounded and is in danger
of becoming in some measure a tool or function of the State. Individuals
and groups should be free to receive the stimulus and challenge of spirit
which may come from outside their state and free to be associated in religious
concerns, subject, of course, to all proper duties of citizenship, with
persons and groups resident in other states. Any great truth or conception
of truth has a supra-local quality, and several of the world’s major religions
are rightly called universal. Similarly, the normal expression of religious
faith in service and in commendation of the faith to others is not confined
by political boundaries… The alternatives of such normal liberty are either
the denial of spiritual contact, the nationalizing of culture, in patterns
of hideous danger revealed by the sealed-off minds of the totalitarian
states primitive and sophisticated alike; or restriction
and control for political ends, infringing religious liberty and limiting
the benefits which should be expected from essentially free contacts on
the religious level.21

In this context the
book cited the recommendations made by the Commission on The Church and
State in Post-War India set up by the National Christian Council of India
in 1944. The Commission had proposed:

The Church
claims freedom to proclaim its Gospel, and to receive into its membership
those who from sincere and honest motives desire to join it. The Church
claims this freedom to commend its Gospel, because it can do no other in
the light of the command of its Founder to preach the Gospel to every creature.
This argument may not weigh with a non-Christian government; but it is
best for the Church to admit frankly that it desires to preach the Gospel
because of its conviction that fullness of life and truth cannot be enjoyed
apart from Christ. On those who cannot accept such a reason it may urge
that religion is such a personal matter that every individual should be
given freedom to make his own decisions in the matter. To commend truth
as one sees it is no infringement of the liberty of another, as he is free
if he wishes to continue in the convictions which he already holds. Rather
it is a recognition of the responsibility of each man to choose what he
believes…

In pleading for
freedom to commend the Gospel to all, we would disavow any methods of propaganda
which would endanger public order or cause scandal and unnecessary offence.
We disapprove all methods of propaganda which hold out material advantage
as a motive for conversion. Furthermore, though conversion does increase
the number of Christians, and such increase may strengthen the political
influence of the Christian community, we disavow any desire for such influence.
It is not our wish that Christians as a community should seek political
influence for themselves; it is rather our wish that they should form a
Church intent only on obeying the will of God. Again, we are of opinion
that no minor under the age of eighteen should be admitted into the Christian
Church without the consent of his parent or guardian. But
in the event of parent or guardian becoming Christian, it is in our opinion
better that division in families is as far as possible to be avoided.22

Finally,
the book came out with its own recommendations. “First,” it said, “there
should be serious study and discerning advocacy of proposals for an International
Bill of Rights or International Charter of Liberties.”23
The program suggested by the Commission to Study the Organisation of Peace
was summarised: “We propose that measures be taken to safeguard human rights
throughout the world by (1) convening without delay a United Nations Conference
on Human Rights to examine the problem, (2) promulgating, as a result of
this conference, an international bill of rights, (3) establishing at this
conference a permanent United Nations Commission on Human Rights for the
purpose of further developing the standards of human rights and the methods
for their protection, (4) seeking the incorporation
of major civil rights in national constitutions and promoting effective
means of enforcement in each nation, (5) recognizing the right of individuals
or groups, under prescribed limitations, to petition the Human Rights Commission,
after exhausting local remedies, in order to call attention to violations.”24

The program was
recommended to the United Nations which was in the process of formation.
“The United Nations Declarations of January 1, 1942,” concluded the book,
“based their common action upon the necessity ‘to defend life, liberty,
independence, and religious freedom, and to preserve human rights and justice
in their own lands as well as in other lands’… The Dumbarton Oaks Agreements
(Proposals for the Establishment of a General International Organization)
of October 7, 1944 declare that ‘the organization should facilitate solutions
of international economic, social, and other humanitarian problems and
promote respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.’ The
proposals center responsibility for this task in an Economic and Social
Council, under the authority of the General Assembly. Thus commitments
of direction are already made. They can be actualized by determination
and persistence.”25

There was not
a word in this big book about the right of the heathens to defend themselves
against Christian aggression euphemised as “the right to propagate religion”.
None of the learned men who collaborated in the compilation of this study
noted that the heathens stood wholly unarmed vis-a-vis the Christian missions.
The heathens were in no position to mobilise the mammoth finances which
Christian missions could do with considerable ease. The heathens had no
seminaries where they could train missionaries of their own and meet the
challenge of Christian legionaries. The heathens commanded no mass media
which could defend their faith against the Christian blitzkrieg on any
comparable footing. Nor had the heathens developed a scholarship which
could prostitute itself in the service of an imperialist enterprise masquerading
as a defender of human rights.

Simultaneously
with the publication of this pretentious book, the U.S. Commission met
in Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A. and set up a National Study Conference which
suggested several improvements in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals of October,
1944. The British Commission did the same. The suggestions were hailed
by the churches in both countries and recommended to their governments
for being taken up at the San Francisco Conference of the United Nations
which was scheduled to meet in April-June 1945.

Meanwhile, a Foreign
Missions Conference had met at Toronto from January 5 to 8, 1945. It was
“attended by 485 delegates and visitors from every state and province of
the U.S.A. and Canada” and represented “every major Protestant denomination
and church affiliation.” The Conference passed resolutions
“earnestly petitioning its two governments of Canada and the U.S.A. to
give immediate attention to their responsibilities in three matters basic
to world organisation, security and peace.” One of the three matters was
“responsibility for religious liberty.”26

The World Council
of Churches and the International Missionary Council exhorted church organisation
all over the world to “intercede” for the success of the San Francisco
Conference. The National Christian Council of India received a cable from
New York stating that the American churches were planning special intercession
on April 22 for the success of the San Francisco Conference and suggesting
like action in “your constituency.” The National
Christian Council Review commented, “Momentous issues will face the
delegates to the San Francisco Conference of the United Nations as they
assemble on April 25… A supreme responsibility rests at this time on the
Universal Church.”27

What this “intercession”
meant became clear when the U.S. monthly, Christianity and Crisis,
published in its June issue a report about Christian influence at San Francisco.
“The concern,” it said, “which Church leaders have shown during the past
decade for the development of a law-governed world has borne fruit... The
State Department included in its group of advisers or consultants, representatives
of certain Church organisations, Federal Council, Church Peace Union, Catholic
Welfare, and others. These representatives had worked consistently and
steadily to back the American delegates in giving what Mr. Dulles has called
a ‘soul’ to the Charter. They had backed the recommendations
for a commission on Human Rights and had urged the recognition of such
in preamble and definition of the Assembly’s work.”28

It seems, however,
that lobbying for “religious liberty” through government delegations was
not enough. Pressure from outside had to be maintained. It was with this
aim that the World Council of Churches and the International Missionary
Council set up a Commission on International Affairs which held its first
meeting in Cambridge, England, in August 1946. One of its aims was to make
sure that “the Church should and will play an important part in promoting
the work of the United Nations.” According to a
spokesman of the Church, “It is imperative that Christians develop an intelligent
understanding of what the United Nations Organisation is, what its duties
are and the manner in which these duties are to be discharged.”29
He added, “The American Church helped influence the shaping of the Charter. Upon
invitation of the Department of State they had their consultants at San
Francisco Conference. Plans are now being perfected whereby Churches may
have ‘observers’ present at the public meetings of the major organs of
the United Nations including the General Assembly.”30

Rest is history.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted and proclaimed by the
General Assembly of the United Nations in October 1948 included Article
18 which read: “Everyone has the right to freedom
of thought, conscience and -religion: this right includes freedom to
change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community
with others and in public or private to manifest his religion or belief
in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”31
The renewed assaults to be mounted by Christian missions in post-war Asia
and Africa had, been camouflaged in clever language.

II

Christian missions
in India were privy to these proceedings of their international patrons.
They had gone into action even before the United Nations Organisation came
into being. The Punjab Indian Christian Association held a meeting at Lahore
on November 4, 1944 and adopted a resolution that “in view of Gandhiji’s
statement that ‘conversion is the deadliest poison that ever sapped the
fountain of truth’”, this meeting, “urges the leaders of the community
all over India to make it known to all concerned that ‘To
preach the gospel’ is a definite command of our master and an integral
part of the Christian Religion, and that therefore no constitution for
India will be acceptable to the community which does not guarantee freedom
to every citizen to propagate his faith and to every adult to change his
religion at his own free will without any legal let or hindrances.”32

Another
meeting of “Christians of all denominations” held at Nagpur on November
25, 1944 considered “the right of freedom to convert people of other faiths
as an integral part of the Christian religion and inalienable and unalterable
right of all Christians as individuals or as organized in Churches.”33
More conferences were held at Bombay, Calcutta, Lahore and Madras in January
and February 1945 on the occasion of the visit to India of Dr. J. W. Decker,
Secretary of the International Missionary Council. He
had come in order to “discover major principles, methods and emphasis which
the Christian movement should adopt in its plan for the post-war decade
or decades with special reference to strengthening the Church and its effective
witness and to the collaboration and help desired from abroad.”34They
adopted similar resolutions on ‘religious liberty’.35

The Executive
Committee of the All India Council of Indian Christians was held in Bombay
on October 27-28, 1945. It decided to start negotiations
with ‘responsible Congress authorities’ for the “legitimate protection
in the coming constitution of India of their rights both as a minority
community and as a body standing for freedom of conscience and the full
and unfettered profession, practice and teaching of their religion.”36
On October 30, 1945 representatives of the Catholic Union of India and
the All-India Council of Indian Christians formed a joint Committee with
Mr. M. Ruthnaswami, Vice-Chancellor of the Annamalai University, as its
Chairman. The Committee adopted a resolution “suggesting that in the future
constitution of India the free profession, practice and propagation of
religion should be guaranteed and that a change of religion should not
involve any civil or political disability.” The
Committee also appointed a sub-committee “to formulate proposals for a
future constitution to be placed before the Constituent Assembly.”37

On February 4,
1946 a Christian Deputation met the British Parliamentary Delegation which
was visiting India at that time. Some members of the Delegation asked the
Deputation “whether Christians feared that they would suffer in a self-governing
India.” The Deputation saw “a possibility arising,
specially in rural areas” but were “clear that they desired to have secured
to them as to other religious communities - in the Constitution itself
- the right to practise, teach and propagate their faith without obstruction
or discrimination.”38

The National
Christian Council Review of March 1946 published an editorial on ‘Religious
Liberty’ and announced that “a comprehensive and profound study of this
whole subject has been completed recently by Dr. Searle Bates.” The words
of the Council which Bates had borrowed vis-a-vis India had become “profound”
in the process of being played back. The same issue published a long article
by Rev. K. F. Weller of the Baptist Missionary Society in Orissa pointing
an accusing finger at certain “Native States” vis-a-vis ‘religious liberty’. “These
instances,” he warned, “are symptomatic and the situation should be watched
carefully for it is a challenge to religious liberty which may grow in
intensity in future.”39 He was repeating what
had been stated by Bates who, in turn, had repeated what the missionaries
in India had told him.

Rev. Stanley
Jones wrote an article, ‘Opportunities for the Church facing Indian Nationalism’,
in the Review of April 1946. He mounted a straight attack on Mahatma
Gandhi. “There is the obvious fear,” he said, “which possesses many minds,
Christian and Muslim, that the Congress is closely bound up with Hinduism;
that the national renaissance and the renaissance of Hinduism have been
simultaneous and synonymous; that the supremacy of the Congress will mean
the supremacy of Hinduism. There is some basis for this fear, for the leader
of the nationalist movement, Mahatma Gandhi, has been closely identified
with the movement to regenerate Hinduism, especially as it concerns the
outcastes… It is also to be regretted that he uses
Ramrajya in speaking of the kind of India he wants to see. In his mind
this is probably very innocent and proper but nevertheless it has not helped
in the winning of the Muslims to the nationalist cause, nor has it made
it easy for the Christians to feel at home, for they do not want Ramrajya
either.”40 These were exactly the charges
which the Communist Party of India and the Indian Muslim League were heaping
on the Mahatma at that time.

Jones had no doubt
that “there will be attempts made to forbid evangelistic work in an independent
India.” But he felt sure that the attempts will
fail. “I believe,” he concluded, “that the presentation of a disentangled
Christ will be allowed and welcomed in free India. If it is not, then I
do not understand the soul of India.”41 He
knew how to combine frowns with flattery. Moreover, he had his eyes on
that powerful section in the Congress led by Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru which
harboured a deep-seated animus against Hindus and Hinduism and which could
be made to say or do anything in order to avoid being called ‘Hindu communalists’.

The same issue
of the Review had given the ‘good news’. “It is equally assuring,”
it reported, “to read what Pandit Nehru said while exhorting Indian Christians
of the U.P. to vote for the two Indian Christian Congress candidates who
were standing for election to the U.P. Legislative Assembly: ‘I am astonished
to read some of the propaganda that is being issued by or on behalf of
the opponents of the Congress… The cry of religion
in danger is used when everybody knows that the fundamental creed of the
Congress is freedom of religion and all that goes with it… Christians form
the third largest group in the country and it is absurd for anyone to imagine
that their religious or other rights can be suppressed or ignored.’”42

The
Congress Election Manifesto had proclaimed a charter of fundamental rights.
One of the clauses assured that “Every citizen shall enjoy freedom of conscience
and the right freely to profess and practise his religion, subject
to public order and morality.”43 What the
Christians missed in it was their “inalienable and unalterable right to
propagate religion.” Pandit Nehru’s assurance did not mention this specific
right. But the assurance was ample enough to cover anything and everything.
The Review made the point quite clear. “These utterances of persons
in responsible positions in Indian politics,” it said, “go a long way toward
dispelling our fears that under Swaraj Christianity will be in danger.
However, the events of the next few months will show whether or not Christians
have justifiable cause for thinking that they may be in for severe persecution. We
trust in any future constitution of India that may be drawn up by a Constituent
Assembly, religious freedom will be guaranteed and no let or hindrance
will be placed in the way of Christians living, preaching and teaching
their religion and taking into membership of their Church those who
honestly accept their way of life and belief.”44
The posture of being persecuted comes easily to those who are aggressive
by nature.

Pandit Nehru removed
all Christian apprehensions in the next assurance he gave them. The Delhi
correspondent of The Catholic Herald of London had an interview
with Pandit Nehru and asked him pointedly, “What is your view of the Indian
Christian representatives’ proposal to the Cabinet Mission that they should
be free not merely to practise but also to propagate their religion?” Pandit
Nehru replied, “It stands to reason that any faith whose roots are strong
and healthy should spread, and to interfere with that right to spread seems
to me to be a blow at the roots themselves... Unless
a given faith proves a menace to public order, or its teachers attempt
to thrust it down the unwilling throats of men of other persuasions, there
can be no justification for measures which deprive any community of its
rights.”45 It was a habit with him to speak
“generally of things in general”, to use his own wards. But those who knew
his prejudices and preferences never missed the point. It was, of course,
his privilege not to know the source from which Christianity derived its
strength and not to care what that strength had done and was doing to its
weak and defenceless victims.

So the Tenth Triennial
Meeting of the National Christian Council of India, Burma and Ceylon was
held in November 1946 in an atmosphere of confidence in the future of Christian
missions in India. Once again, Christian missions and churches could plan
their future programme in a mood of optimism. The proceedings of the Meeting
were reviewed by Rev. C.E. Abraham of the Serampore Theological College,
“Another impression,” he wrote, “that was left on one was the immensity
of the unfinished task of the Missions and Churches in India. A coloured
map of India that was exhibited showing unoccupied areas… drew pointed
attention to the huge proportions of the evangelistic task of the Church
in India… Conditions in India, political and social, are changing quickly
and sometimes changing beyond recognition. At such a time as this, foresight
rather than caution, is what is demanded of missionary statesmen… Are
future leaders being recruited in sufficient numbers? Are they being given
sufficient training in India or abroad to assume responsibilities? Or is
the shibboleth of ‘self-support’ being allowed to stifle initiative and
to cover up complacency? These are questions that need to be pondered most
conscientiously by Mission Boards in India and overseas.”46

The Meeting set
up a Commission for making recommendations on ‘The Church in a Self-governing
India’. The Commission advocated that churches and missions should be integrated.
This was to ensure that foreign missions were not spotted separately. In
any case, integration was not to hinder the flow of foreign money and manpower.
“This matter of integration,” said the Commission, “should not of itself
involve the diminishing of assistance by old Churches in personnel, funds-and
counsel to the Churches in India. The National Christian
Council is convinced that the Church in India will continue to need and
to welcome as colleagues their brethren in faith from the older Churches
to join with them in the building up of the Church in the fulfilment of
the duty of sharing the evangel of Christ.”47

Bishop C. K. Jocob
read a paper in the Meeting. The Churches in India, according to him, were
in a transition period. “Till the Churches are established
on a firm footing,” he said, “they should continue to receive financial
aid from the old Churches in the West. Not only for the building up of
the Church, but for extending the evangelistic work in areas not yet touched,
funds are needed by every section of the Church.”48

A message which
the National Christian Council received from the Indian Christian Association
of Bombay repeated the same recommendation. “The Church of Christ,” said
the message, “is a Universal Church and there can be no place in Christian
work for any distinctions on lines of nationality, race or colour. We,
therefore, emphatically disagree with the ill-conceived cry of ‘Foreign
Missionaries Quit India’ raised in certain disgruntled and irresponsible
quarters. Moreover, the Christian Church in India is not in a position
to take over the complete responsibility for the conduct of the Christian
enterprise in this country. We are therefore deeply
conscious of the fact that we still need the help and cooperation of the
Churches in the West - both in the shape of material resources and personnel.”49

The March 1947
editorial of the Review was full of hope for the future. “That the
Christians in India,” it said, “will be called upon to play an important
part in the national life of the country is becoming increasingly clear.
Not very long ago Pandit Nehru in an interview with a representative of
The Catholic Herald said, ‘Indian Christians are part and parcel
of the Indian people. Their traditions go to 1500 years and more and they
form one of the many enriching elements in the country’s cultural and spiritual
life.’” It quoted “a leading Congressman” saying
to Dr. Stanley Jones that “what was needed for India was a character producing
faith and that there was no doubt that the impact of Christ upon life produced
miracles in change of character.”50

The same issue
of the Review presented a pamphlet, The Right to Convert, written
by two Christian scholars and published by the Christian Literature Society.
The pamphlet which was being widely advertised in the Christian press defined
conversion as “changes of faith, together with the outward expressions
that such changes normally involve, and efforts to promote such changes.”
It held up the right to convert as a fundamental human right which
could not be interfered with. It also gave “reasons and convincing answers”
to objections against conversions, namely, “that the established position
is true; that all religions are the same; that conversion denationalises;
that conversion brings in denominations; that conversion is socially disruptive;
that conversion involves religious controversy; that conversion uses abusive
methods; and that conversion uses unfair methods.” The
reviewer thanked the writers for their “substantial contribution to the
literature dealing with the problem of religious liberty in the context
of the present situation in India.”51

The Review
of May 1947 published a report of the findings of an informal conference
of Christian leaders held at Brindaban, U.P., in January 1947. The report
started by recording “its gratitude to the missionary enterprise which
has led the churches of the West to bring to India the wonderful blessing
of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and which has promoted those activities
- spiritual, moral, intellectual, social and economic - that have flowed
there from.” It also assured “the sending societies
that there is no thought here that the churches in India will not for a
long time to come continue to need and to welcome the help of the older
and the richer churches in facing the enormous tasks of regeneration and
reconstruction of life in India.”52 It informed
the fund-raisers abroad that “a study is being made under the auspices
of the National Christian Council of unoccupied fields and of the needs
especially of the tribal areas in order that an appeal may be made to all
concerned and the efforts of new workers in pioneer fields be directed
to the best effect.” It concluded by saying that
“In regard to religious liberty it was agreed that while doing all
possible through every channel to secure fundamental human rights for all,
yet in every situation the church should go forward courageously and not
be too much troubled by state action.”53

III

Meanwhile, the
Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights, set up by the Constituent Assembly
on January 24, 1947, had finalised the Draft Articles which included ‘Rights
relating to Religion’. As related earlier, the Election Manifesto of the
Congress Party had assured to every citizen ‘freedom of conscience and
the right freely to profess and practise his religion subject to
public order and morality’. The Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights
held its first meeting on February 27, 1947 and elected Sardar Vallabhbhai
Patel as its Chairman. The Committee then set up a Sub-committee to deal
specifically with Fundamental Rights as distinguished from Minority Rights,
etc. Acharya J. B. Kripalani was elected its Chairman. Rajkumari Amrit
Kaur was the Christian representative in the Sub-Committee.

On March 17, 1947
Shri K. M. Munshi presented to the Sub-committee a Note and Draft Articles
on Fundamental Rights. The Rights to Religion under Article Ill included
the following clauses among others:

(1) All
citizens are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and to the right
freely to profess and practise religion in a manner compatible with public
order, morality or health:

Provided that
the economic, financial or political activities associated with religious
worship shall not be deemed to be included in the right to profess or practise
religion.

(6) No person
under the age of eighteen shall be free to change his religious persuasion
without the permission of his parent or guardian.

(7)
Conversion from one religion to another brought about by coercion, undue
influence or the offering of material inducement is prohibited and is punishable
by the law of the Union.54

Many meetings of
the Sub-committee were held till its final report was submitted to the
Advisory Committee on Fundamental Rights on April 16, 1947. The changes
which the Draft Articles underwent on various dates are being narrated
below.

March 26, 1947

Article
VI -- Clause (l): All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience
and the right freely to profess and practise religion in a manner
compatible with public order, morality or health.

Explanation
II: The right to profess and practise religion shall not include economic,
financial, political or other secular activities associated with religious
worship.55

March 27, 1947

Clause (6) of Article VI
was accepted in the following form:

No person under
the age of 18 shall be converted to any religion other than one in which
he was born or be initiated into any religious order involving loss of
civil status.

Clause (7) of Article VI was passed
in the following form:

Conversion
from one religion to another brought about by coercion or undue influence
shall not be recognized by law and the exercise of such coercion or undue
influence shall be an offence.56

March 29, 1947

Clause
(1) of Article VI as revised on March 26, 1947 was decided to be amplified
so as to read as follows:

All
persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely
to profess and practise religion in a manner compatible with public
order, morality or health and with the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution.57

The numbering of
clauses continued getting changed as they were arranged and rearranged
under Chapter I. They stood as under on successive dates:

April 3, 1947

16. All
persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely
to profess and practise religion subject to public order, morality
or health and to the other provisions of this chapter.

Explanation
II: The right to profess and practise religion shall not include any
economic, financial, political or other secular activities that may be
associated with religious worship.

Explanation
III: No person shall refuse the performance of civil obligations or
duties on the ground that his religion so requires.

22. No person
under the age of 18 shall be converted to any religion other than the one
in which he was born or be initiated into any religious order involving
a loss of civil status.

23.
Conversion from one religion to another brought about by coercion or undue
influence shall not be recognized by law and the exercise of such coercion
or undue influence shall be an offence.58

April 14, 1947

Clause 16 was decided to
be redrafted as follows:

“All persons are
equally entitled to freedom of conscience, to freedom of religious worship
and to freedom to profess religion subject to public order, morality
or health and to the other provisions of this chapter.”

Explanation
II: The above rights shall not include any economic, financial, political
or other secular activities that may be associated with religious worship.

There was no discussion on Clauses 22
and 23 which were left unchanged.

April 15, 1947

Clause
22: For the words ‘converted to’ substitute the words ‘made to join or
profess’.

Clause
23: In the third line, omit the words ‘or undue influence’. Dr. Ambedkar
proposed that the clause should end with the words ‘recognized by law’
but this was not accepted by the Committee.60

April 16, 1947

16. All
persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience, to freedom
of religious worship and to freedom to profess religion subject
to public order, morality or health and to the other provisions of this
chapter.

Explanation
II: The above rights shall not include any economic, financial, political
or other secular activities that may be associated with religious worship.

Explanation
III: No person shall refuse the performance of civil obligations or
duties on the ground that his religion so requires.

21. No person
under the age of 18 shall be made to join or profess any religion other
than the one in which he was born or be initiated into any religious order
involving a loss of civil status.

22.
Conversion from one religion to another brought about by coercion or undue
influence shall not be recognized by law and the exercise of such coercion
shall be an offence.61

By now Clauses 22
and 23 had been renumbered as 21 and 22. This draft was referred by the
Advisory Committee to the Sub-committee on Minorities and some more changes
were made in it on different dates.

April 17, 1947

Meeting
of the Sub-Committee on Minorities examined the draft clauses recommended
by the Fundamental Rights Sub-committee.

Clause
16. Mr. Ruthnaswamy pointed out that certain religions such as Christianity
and Islam, were essentially proselytizing religions, and provision should
be made to permit them to propagate their faith in accordance with
their tenets.62

April 18, 1947

In the Sub-Committee on
Minorities meeting:

Clause 21. Mr.
Ruthnaswamy: Its provisions will break up family life. A minor should be
allowed to follow his parents in any change of religion or nationality
which they may adopt.

Clause
22. Mr. Rajagopalachari questioned the necessity of this provision, when
it was covered by the ordinary law of the land, e.g. the Indian Penal Code.63

April 19, 1947

H. C. Mookerjee,
Chairman of the Minorities Sub-Committee, made the following recommendations:

Clause 16: The clause may
be redrafted as follows:

“All persons are
equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess,
practise and propagate religion subject to public order, morality
or health and to the other provision of the chapter; and that in Explanation
2 for the words ‘religious worship’, religious practice ‘should be substituted.’

Clause 21: This clause may be redrafted
as follows:

“(a) No person
under the age of 18 shall be made to join or profess any religion other
than the one in which he was born, except when his parents themselves have
been converted and the child does not choose to adhere to his original
faith;

“Nor shall such person be initiated
into any religious order involving a loss of civil status.

“(b)
No conversion shall be recognized unless the change of faith is attested
by a Magistrate after due inquiry.”64

April 21, 1947

In this meeting of the Advisory Committee
the following discussion was held:

M.
Ruthnaswamy: The word ‘propagate’ is a well known word. It includes
not only preaching but other forms of propaganda made known by modern developments
like the use of films, radio, cinemas and other things.

K. M. Munshi:
The word might be brought, I think, to cover even forced conversion. Some
of us opposed it. I am not in favour of it. So far as the ‘freedom of speech’
is concerned it carries sufficient authority to cover any kind of preaching.
If the word ‘propaganda’ means something more than preaching, you must
know what it is and therefore I was opposed to this introduction of the
word ‘propaganda’.

Alladi Krishnaswami
Ayyar: Even in the American continent we do not have these practices
as a special right, because we have freedom of speech. We have freedom
of conscience. You have got the freedom of the press which is involved
in the freedom of speech and writing. Therefore why place in the forefront
of our country this propagation of particular religious faith and belief?
I personally do not recognise the right of propagation.

Govind Ballabh
Pant: At the worst it is redundant and as so many members want it we
had better introduce it.

K. M. Munshi: It is not a
redundant word.

Chairman:
Let us take votes on it. Those who are in favour of retaining the word
‘propagate’ may raise their hands. (The amendment was accepted.)65

Clauses 21 and 22 were taken up after
some time and the following discussion ensued:

Secretary:
This has been redrafted by the Minorities Committee like this: (a) No person
under the age of 18 shall be made to join or profess any religion other
than the one in which he was born except when his parents themselves have
been converted and the child does not choose to adhere to his original
faith; nor shall such person be initiated into any religious order involving
a loss of civil status. (b) No conversion shall be recognized unless the
change of faith is attested by a Magistrate after due inquiry.

Chairman:
I consider these are matters to be left to legislation. (With the concurrence
of the House) Clause 21 is deleted. We may take up clause 22. This clause
too is unnecessary, and may be deleted. This is not a fundamental right.

Frank Anthony: These are matters
which are absolutely vital to the Christians; clause 22 about conversion.

M. Ruthnaswamy: The deletion
of the clause allows conversion.

Frank Anthony: You are leaving
it to legislation. The legislature may say tomorrow that you have no right.

Chairman: Even under the present
law, forcible conversion is an offence.

Syama Prasad
Mookerjee: There is significance with regard to the civil law. If a
person is converted by undue influence or coercion, the rights do not relate
to the point at which he was converted.

Chairman:
What you really want is that society will not recognize forcible conversions.
It is for the society and not for the law.

Syama Prasad
Mookerjee: Clause 22 should not be deleted. it may not be recognized
by law. Let us be clear about facts. If a person is converted to another
religion even by undue influence…

Chairman: Is not the exercise
of such undue influence an offence?

Syama Prasad
Mookerjee: I am talking about the first part. If there is conversion
by coercion, it does not put back the civil rights of the person as before.

Chairman: We cannot have a
fundamental right for every conceivable thing. We are not legislating.

Bakshi Tek
Chand: Take the recent case of a Sikh who was forcibly converted in
Rawalpindi District. The Sikh society took him back later. Now what is
the position of his rights in- between these two times?

Chairman:
That was forcible conversion. Forcible conversion is no conversion. We
won’t recognise it. “Conversion from one religion to another brought about
by undue influence shall not be recognised by law.” We drop the last line.66

April 22, 1947

The meeting of the Advisory Committee
decided as follows:

Clause 16 should be redrafted
as:

“All persons are
equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess,
practise and propagate religion subject to public order, morality or health,
and to the other provisions of this chapter.

“(Note:
It was agreed that Messrs Rajagopalachari and S. P. Mookerjee should submit
a draft proviso to this clause permitting social legislation which may
affect religious practice.)

“Explanation
2: The above rights shall not include any economic, financial, political
or other secular activities that may be associated with religious practice.

Explanation
3: The freedom of religious practice guaranteed in this clause shall
not debar the State from enacting laws for the purpose of social welfare
and reform.

“(Note: The decision to insert
the words ‘religious practice’ was taken by a majority of 2 votes.)

“Clause 21: Deleted.

“Clause 22 should be redrafted as
follows:

“Conversion from
one religion to another brought about by coercion or undue influence shall
not be recognized by law.”67

April 23, 1947

The clauses were renumbered and finalised
as follows:

13. All
persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely
to profess, practise and propagate religion subject to public order, morality
or health, and to the other provisions of this chapter.

Explanation
2: The above right shall not include any economic, financial, political
or other secular activities that may be associated with religious practice.

Explanation
3: The freedom of religious practice guaranteed in this clause shall
not debar the State from enacting laws for the purpose of social welfare
and reform.

17. Conversion
from one religion to another brought about by coercion or undue influence
shall not be recognized by law.68

By now Clause 16 had become Clause 13
and Clause 22 had become Clause 17.

Thus even before
India attained independence, a criminal ideology had been recognized as
a religion, a colony crystallized by Christian-Western imperialism had
been accorded the status of a minority community, and gangsterism financed
and controlled from abroad had received a new lease of life.

It is true that
high pressure propaganda mounted by powerful establishments in Europe and
America had contributed considerably to the success of this conspiracy.
But Indian leaders were no less guilty of sponsoring the sin, for one reason
or the other, as we shall see.

Footnotes:

1
The British body was the Commission on International Friendship and Social
Responsibility. Its counterpart in the U.S.A. was the Commission on a just
and Durable Peace set up under the Chairmanship of Mr. John Foster Dulles,
the future Secretary of State.

13Ibid., pp. 431-432. Thus Christianity, with all its intolerance,
was found to contain the seeds of religious liberty! But Hinduism, with
all its tolerance, could not claim that credit! In simple language, what
the learned exercise wanted to say was that religious liberty was a by-product
of religious intolerance and consequent conflict. One had to be a bandit
before one could hope to be a saint.

41Ibid., p. 101. “Disentangled Christ” means Christ tom out of Christian
history. That criminal history which had been created, without a doubt
by Christ, the one and only saviour, had come under fire in an age which
had, by and large, freed itself from Christian monolatry.

46Ibid., January 1947, pp. 12-13. The proposal of some ‘nationalist’
Christians that the Church in India should be self-supporting in order
to be independent, was not relished by most Christians, particularly the
missionaries.